anyway? Just more innocent deaths
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — President Bush's planned escalation of U.S. forces in Iraq will require as many as 28,500 troops, Pentagon officials told a Senate committee Thursday. In January, Bush said he would send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. England said 6,000 to 7,000 support troops will be needed to back up the larger combat force.There are about 10,000 soldiers in Iraq now associated with the escalation, according to Lt. Col. Carl Ey, an Army spokesman. In all, there are about 140,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq
(..& about 50 thous. are support aren't they?)
So, Bush is cutting it rather thin don't you think? The article also tells us that the "increase in troops is expected to peak in May."
I imagine that means even more deaths on either side. The madness must end. Why are we still in Iraq anyway? Despite what Bush tells us, these Iraqi factions are better off fighting each other WITHOUT the United States.
2007-03-03
02:55:01
·
16 answers
·
asked by
rare2findd
6
in
Politics